ADS
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2002
- Posts
- 441
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
Actually, any decent OS textbook will tell you the design idea that drove Unix (and Linux) forward was "small, simple, efficient, functional pieces that work together." I find this to be very true. Certain other OSes on the other hand *coughMScough* are driven by the desire to have single monolithic apps that do everything under the sun, and hence are buggy, bloated, and insecure. That aside (I could go much more in depth, but you probably don't really care), I also think that Foobar does 10x the things Winamp does, faster, more accurately, and without all the unnecessary clutter of winamp. I understand the "oh wow!" factor of skins and whatnot, but for actually listening to music? After starting Foobar, I leave it in the background while I do other things. When I want to find music, Foobar's playlist lets me do it very quickly (much faster than I can with those silly winamp skins with nonstandard buttons). Lastly, I'd recommend comparing the CPU usage between Winamp and Foobar on your computer, not using numbers obtained on a FAQ, since the CPU usage will vary widely depending on the speed of the computer used.
| Originally Posted by Illah This is classic Linux logic. Let's make things more complicated and have less functions...but it's better! Haha, if you complain about WinAmp using resources I don't recall it ever eating 30% CPU when resampling and EQ'ing like every Foobar FAQ on this site will tell you to do. And let's face it - if WinAmp eats a big enough percentage of your resources to make a noticable difference in performance you have other problems. WinAmp rocks! If it did Kernel Streaming properly I'd still be using it today...and now that I'm getting an EMU with good ASIO support I'll probably be going back. --Illah |
Actually, any decent OS textbook will tell you the design idea that drove Unix (and Linux) forward was "small, simple, efficient, functional pieces that work together." I find this to be very true. Certain other OSes on the other hand *coughMScough* are driven by the desire to have single monolithic apps that do everything under the sun, and hence are buggy, bloated, and insecure. That aside (I could go much more in depth, but you probably don't really care), I also think that Foobar does 10x the things Winamp does, faster, more accurately, and without all the unnecessary clutter of winamp. I understand the "oh wow!" factor of skins and whatnot, but for actually listening to music? After starting Foobar, I leave it in the background while I do other things. When I want to find music, Foobar's playlist lets me do it very quickly (much faster than I can with those silly winamp skins with nonstandard buttons). Lastly, I'd recommend comparing the CPU usage between Winamp and Foobar on your computer, not using numbers obtained on a FAQ, since the CPU usage will vary widely depending on the speed of the computer used.
